The letter also seems to strip gay couples of titles that would make them appear to be similar to straight couples. For example, notice the quotation marks in these sentences:

…Religious employers who provide special health benefits to married employees would be required by law to extend those benefits to same-sex “spouses”…

…So, for example, religious adoption services that place children exclusively with married couples would be required by law to place children with persons of the same sex who are civilly “married”…

Why do I care? They’re just words. Spouse. Marriage. They don’t mean much. Or do they? To me, this is reminiscent of the argument for separate but equal status: it segregates Dan and me from the rest of society–not only can we not get married, we aren’t allowed to refer to ourselves as being married. That’s something only straight, awesome people can do. When conversing with religious people, they sometimes deliberately avoid the use of words like marriage and spouse or husband and stammer for a word they feel is an appropriate middle ground (i.e., is separate but totally equal). It’s like when LDS Church president Gordon B. Hinckley referred to gays and lesbians as “so-called” gays and lesbians.

They’re just words, so I won’t be offended by them.

But other people seem to care about the words used to refer to them so maybe I should care. Remember when Robert Jefress called Mormonism a cult? And said Mormons aren’t Christian (i.e., don’t believe in Christ)? Facebook and Twitter were abuzz with Mormons repudiating his claims. Maybe Jefress was just stammering for words he feels are appropriate to separate his god-fearing religion from Mormonism. Here’s a refresher from Anderson Cooper.

Are “marriage” and “spouse” really just words? Linda Stay answered the question beautifully in this clip from 8: The Mormon Proposition. Her son married in California (before gay marriage was overturned), and she shared her thoughts about what that marriage did for her son’s relationship.

Words are powerful, especially the word marriage. Denying others the opportunity to use the word is also powerful and is not without its consequences.

5 comments on “Marriage and Religious Freedom letter signed by the LDS Church”

1) H. David Burton has nothing to do with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which is a tiny Protestant group that broke off from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1844 and today counts roughly 250 members in the Beloit, Wisconsin area (although they don’t know exactly how many, because they don’t keep track). Silly, I know, but a sadly necessary distinction.

2) The petition signed by Bishop Burton has nothing to do with marriage equality, which the Church has always supported; it has to do with maintaining the definition of the word “marriage,” which no matter how loudly some people protest, includes neither homorrhage, pedorrhage, nor any othe rmanner of -rrhage.

Jeff, thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify. I changed the initials of Bishop Burton’s name and added a link to his Wikipedia page to clarify that I wasn’t writing about H. David Burton of 1844 and was writing about H. David Burton who is Bishop Burton (i.e., the 13th Presiding Bishop of the LDS Church).

Help me understand how a church that was behind Prop. 8 (and other constitutional amendments in the US that remove marriage benefits from gay and lesbian couples) is supportive of marriage equality: How has the LDS Church supported marriage equality (despite its efforts to change state constitutions)?

I agree that the use or words to separate has consequences that are both subtle and damaging. It’s difficult to imagine an organization that claims to promote goodwill, peace, and the love of Christ would separate people into discriminable, not-equal groups.

This post is appropriate today of all days as we celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s birthday. He approached the use of any means, including arbitrary, exclusionary language, intended to separate humans from each other as harmful. He said, “If we are to have peace on earth, our loyalties… must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation; and this means we must develop a world perspective.”

Such a perspective I imagine includes respecting the in-born traits of others and ultimately their choices with respect and dignity, even if and especially when we wouldn’t choose the same things.

Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Dan. I really like the quotes you shared. And I didn’t even think about how this post was appropriate for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday (or Human Rights Day). There must be something in the air 🙂